#JaneGotAGun/@janegotagunfilm Trailer #Reaction And Discussion

I hate to get political when discussing or reacting to movies. Doesn’t mean I will shy away from it. Take for example, this upcoming movie Jane Got A Gun:

I first want to get the non-politics talk first, just because. My first reaction, is that of the cast list. On my goodness, this is a Star Wars prequel reunion (more or less)! Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor were all in the prequels at one point or another. If you don’t know exactly what Joel Edgerton did, he played the young Owen Lars. Also of note, Ewan McGregor is replacing Bradley Cooper, who replaced Jude Law, who replaced Joel Edgerton, who replaced Michael Fassbender.

The trailer really doesn’t do the movie’s plot justice. It makes it seem like Jane (Natalie Portman) is an outlaw fighting the good guys and she needs help defending her home. That seems, interesting, to say the least. However that is not the case. Here is the synopses I got from the Wikipedia page:

Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) has built a new life with her husband Bill “Ham” Hammond (Noah Emmerich) after being tormented by the Bishop Boys gang. She finds herself in the gang’s crosshairs once again when Ham stumbles home riddled with bullets after dueling with the Boys and their relentless leader, Colin (Ewan McGregor). With the vengeful crew hot on Ham’s trail, Jane has nowhere to turn but to her former fiancĂ© Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) for help in defending her family against certain death. Haunted by old memories, Jane’s past meets the present in a heart-stopping battle for survival.

The trailer is setting us up for one thing and the movie is going in a different direction. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. This is why people don’t like trailers. The movie presented in the trailer seems a lot more interesting than the synopses. Just saying.

However my interest in the movie is more academic than anything. With “Gun Control” all the rage right now, I have to ask a couple questions to the left:

Would progressive/liberals take away Jane’s right to self defense and strip her of her gun? Does “Stand Your Ground” not apply here? Would they tell Jane to piss on herself when the bad guys comes to take her? Do you think a “Gun Free Zone” sign outside Jane’s house turn back the Bishop Boys?

I would really like to hear your answers.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: New #GunControl #ExecutiveOrder/#ExecutiveAction …Does Nothing!

The President has been mulling issuing an Executive Order/Executive Action to a myth of a loop-hole for some time now. We have been holding our breathe waiting for this order to come down in order to force everyday people into a background check if this is a person-to-person sell of a gun. While the details have yet to emerge, we are now getting a good idea of what we are in for in the near future. After some time thinking about this, the brain trust is going to-

-make a clear distinction between gun collectors and gun sellers. Under current law, background checks are required for anyone buying a firearm from someone “engaged in the business” of selling guns (like a federally-permitted gun store or dealer). Sales made out of a person’s private collection, many of which are done online, are not subject to background checks.

The president could order a threshold be established such that anyone selling a certain number of guns annually would no longer qualify as a collector but also as someone “in the business” of firearm sales. Those buyers would then be subject to background checks.

Adopting this proposal would not eliminate the so-called “gun show loophole”…

Okay, there is a lot to unpack here. Let’s start with the obvious fact CBS debunks the “gun show loophole” myth. They first admit most private citizens who want to sell their guns, do it online and not at gun shows. While I do not know much about gun collecting, I do know a little about collecting in general. The whole point of collecting, is to COLLECT! They are not in the business of whatever the opposite of collecting would be. Most collectors I know would be hard pressed to trade or even sell their collection. There are only a few reasons why someone would give up their collection:

1) Hard press for money. Whether they need the money for food, bills, or a valued prized. They could also sell their collection for charity work.

2) Loss interest. Collecting is a hobby and someone could lose interest in their hobby. This has happened to me.

3) Dies. They could pass on their collection, which in turn should be allowed to be liquidated by the new owner.

There are problems with setting thresholds and we painfully learned them in ObamaCare. This Executive Order/Executive Action reeks of the 30-hour week requirement in ObamaCare, which had employers turn around and just cut everyone’s hours.

If you set it to high, then it does nothing. Most normal people I know, have one to five (max) guns. If you set the threshold at 25 for example, then most people can sell half a dozen guns without blinking an eye.

If you set it too low, people will just skirt around it by just selling their guns at a slower pace. You might also have the awful consequence of making criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens by accident. If the Obama Administration is making this whole “threshold” thing out of whole cloth, then the first person who gets snagged by this can likely get this thing toss as being unconstitutional or even overturned by the next president. And how, pray tell me, are you going to find out someone sold over their threshold before something happens?

See, I can go on-and-on with the amount of holes I can poke in this executive order/executive action. The important note in all of this, is that it solves nothing. I dare you to explain to me how this would have stop any of the shootings. All this will do, is possibly make otherwise law abiding citizens fearful of the federal government. For my law enforcement friends who would love to enforce this awful executive order/executive action, please do not break into the wrong goddamn rec room.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: The #ACLU’s Outright #Hypocrisy Is Awful

The ACLU’s outright hypocrisy is awful and downright breathtaking. The mental gymnastics going on inside the ACLU brain trust right now is monumental in scope:

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking no position on legislation that would bar people from buying guns if they are on the federal government’s no-fly list – a list that the ACLU has spent the past five years arguing is unconstitutional.

(H/T: Moe Lane) Oh come on. This should have been an easy lay-up for these guys. Stuff like this nonsense is why I never call the ACLU by the full name, because until they fight for all civil liberties, then they are just a left-wing hack group. At least the NRA is consistent.

In fact, the ACLU used to be against using the watch lists to restrict gun purchases:

Notably, in 2010, the ACLU testified against “the use of terror watch lists to screen gun purchases,” writing that the “deeply flawed” terror watch list process led the group to conclude, “Given these problems, we do not believe that anyone should be deprived of the right to purchase a gun, or the right to fly, or any other benefit of membership in civil society based solely on placement on a terror watch list.”

The ACLU has since back-pedaled, because now they have since changed their minds about the No-Fly List at break-neck speed:

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for (Gun Control), but only with major reform.

Their idea of “reform” includes due process to get off the list, not due process to get on the list. They no longer find the “No-Fly List” unconstitutional for some reason. This is because their living God and Messiah now wants to use the No-Fly List to ban people from buying guns.

And yes, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were never on any watch list. If we would have ban people on the No-Fly List from buying guns before this happened, then nothing would have changed.

Philip Bump made a joke that went over some people’s head. I think it is a good joke because there’s truth to it. Philip Bump goes on to think of it as a bad joke, but not enough to actually delete the tweet:

The point of the joke — which I very quickly realized was lost on some, making it a bad joke — was that the no-fly list is a secret list that uses secret criteria to determine who finds a home on it. …

An example of under-reporting was easy to come by: The shooters in San Bernardino. It’s not clear that there was a way to definitively identify the married couple as being a public risk ahead of time, but it is clear that they weren’t identified as such. There will always be people who are not identified in advance, making the list necessarily incomplete.

The San Bernardino attack also demonstrated the risk of over-inclusion. At least one news outlet confused the male shooter — Syed Rizwan Farook — with his brother, Syed Raheel Farook. “They have the same name except for the middle name,” Sparapani pointed out, meaning that including a “Syed Farook” on the list might block either from flying. (The shooter’s brother is a decorated Navy veteran.) There’s also the challenge of converting Arabic names into English writing. Consider the former leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi. Or Qaddafi. Or Gadhafi. Do you put all three names on the list? Get the letters wrong, and some people will be banned who shouldn’t be.

I am going to come out and lay some hard truth for you: Flying is not a civil liberty. I know I have broken your walled in safe space, but you need to hear this right now. You do not have the right to fly. Where in the Constitution is there a clause for a right of transportation, because I have yet to find it. Sure if you want to get anywhere, you can drive or take a boat and generally it will take you longer. Get over it, life is not fair. Cry me a river.

However the right to be armed is a civil liberty. Just saying.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: #GunControl = #PoliceState …Enough Said

The Left On Gun Control

I want to start off with that I have nothing against individual police officers in general. This is not about them. There may be bad apples within their ranks, but I respect your service.

No, this is about the left talking out their mouths and ass at the same time.

Look at the “Black Lives Matter” protests. Their main gripe is the police have too much power. They hate the police. In fact, one of their main chants “Pigs In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon!” is well known. Once liberals got back in power in NYC, they stopped the Stop-And-Frisk policy over there.

They also hate guns. I do not have to link or quote much in order for you to get the picture. You can not throw a stone at Daily Kos without hitting a gun control article. They want to use the power of the state to take away your guns. In fact, they will need a huge police state to enforce gun control. Ross Douthat paints the picture:

The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits …but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.

I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would probably look more like Michael Bloomberg’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders’ Vermont, authorities would mostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms.

See, this is what gun control will look like. It will be a police state to enforce gun control. The left wants gun control because then they will then be the ones in control.

Now before you get all high and mighty on me about legalizing of marijuana, I want to point out a that there is a difference between getting high and self-defense. Getting stone is not a constitutional right. We have other non-additive anti-inflammatory and pain-killing drugs. I have seen people’s lives ruined using drugs. When the government gets out of control, I can’t throw marijuana at them in self-defense. I also find it morally repugnant to grow the government with taxes from additive marijuana. To keep and bear Arms, is a right. I have seen countless stories where armed people have saved their, or other people’s lives, with a gun.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: Why #SmartGuns Are Dumb

Since the gun debate has heated up, I have seen people posting in the #SmartGuns these days. I want to go over with the Left again, why smart guns are a dumb idea.

Lowell Ponte of Newsmax fires off a couple questions asking the gun control/smart gun advocates to answer:

What if the battery powering your gun’s computer chip has gone bad?

What if your trigger must confirm your fingerprint, but the fight to defend yourself has left your finger dirty or bloody?

What… if you need to use someone else’s “smart gun” in an emergency?

What if in your absence a spouse tries to defend herself, or himself, with your smart handgun programmed so that only you can fire it?

These are uncomfortable questions for the gun control/smart gun advocates, because there are no good answers. Lowell Ponte also points out three other points that I will go over myself.

Ponte notes that the “smart gun” Amatrix iP1 .22 goes for $1,399 and the wrist armband that goes with it is a whopping $399. Just like driverless cars, the average American will be priced out of owning a handgun in order to protect themselves. Only the super rich or the government will be able to afford them.

If we switch over to “smart guns” that use computer chips, anyone equipped with EMPs and electronic-neutralizing devices can easily disarm you.

Lowell Ponte’s last great point needs to be address:

A California smart gun start-up named Yardarm… has developed a technology so that “Users can even remotely disable their weapons.” If owners can do this, who else can?

I know, right? Smartphone tech is getting more advanced, but people are still dumb. Liberals also say they are worried about the NSA hacking into their personal lives, yet having a hackable gun is somehow a good idea?

Speaking of criminals, I dare you ask several of them if they would want to use a smart gun. I am sure any criminal worth his salt would not be using a “smart guns” themselves. I bet you anything they would rather equip themselves with the EMPs and electronic-neutralizing devices.

Kenneth W. Royce wrote that “no defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers.” I agree completely. Basically, smart guns are dumb because they would unreliable. Too many things can go wrong with them. I think gun control advocates knows this and that is why they push it.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: New #WarOnChristianity Wants To Leave You Defenseless

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” -Ian Fleming

Nine people are dead after an attacker opened fire in a historically black church in Charleston, S.C. Wednesday night. “This is an unfathomable and unspeakable act by someone filled with hate, and with a deranged mind,” Charleston Mayor Joseph Riley said in a press conference Thursday morning.

Okay, this is clearly happenstance. The Charleston church was a soft target and gun free zone (more on that later). So this could have been a one time deal. The asshole here was racist and this was a black church, so of course they are Christians.

A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.

“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN.

Is this a coincidence? Another group of Christians murdered? Again, soft target and a gun free zone.

I am sensing a pattern here. Christians are being murdered in deadly “gun free zones” and the best answer that any liberal/progressive has to offer, is to-

vent righteous indignation, then look around for someone to blame for a problem that almost certainly has no legislative remedy. Congresses under control of both parties certainly haven’t found any, and none of the proposals that percolate out in the minutes after a publicized shooting incident turn out to apply when all of the facts finally come out.

The only hint of a policy from anyone came from Obama, who praised Australia for their reaction to a mass shooting, and that solution was a massive firearm confiscation program.

What a surprise. The guy who thinks most law abiding citizen clings to guns and religion, wants to confiscate your gun and leave you completely defenseless. Self-defense or the Second Amendment doesn’t matter to Obama. If it were up to him, Obama would confiscate your means of self-defense right now.

I find it paradoxical that those who want to cancel out the Second Amendment, are the loudest to complain about a police state when talking about our current law enforcement officers. If we confiscate all the guns from law abiding citizens, then we will demand a larger police presence. Or haul you into big cities against your will, for “your protection” of course.

Do we need Ian Fleming’s “enemy action” before we ourselves take action? Christians are now being targeted and others now want us to be easier targets. I am all for forgiveness and turning the other cheek, however I don’t think Christianity was supposed to be a suicide pack. If it is a suicide pack, then the first Christians would have died with Stephen than flee Jerusalem. I reject the idea that just because you are a Christian, you can’t fight back to save your life or another’s life.

Before I close this up, I want my fellow liberal/progressive to answer me this question honestly: You’re a criminal. Laws do not matter to you and have many guns yourself. Two towns lay before you. One town has a “shall issue” CCW permitting, no “gun free zones” anywhere, and at least one gun shop. The other town has a “may issue” CCW permitting, “gun free zones” in a couple places (churches, schools, and a movie theater), and no gun shops in sight. Which town do you moved to?

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: You Don’t Need A Gun To #Murder People

First, I like to offer my prayers for the families and friends Alison Parker and Adam Ward, as well as my unending hope they had their peace with God before the end. I also hope for the quick recovery of the third victim. My prayers for her and all of her family as well.

Second, I have watched the video of the murder. I will not embed or link it here, but I will describe it as best I can. Alison Parker was all smiles and having a nice talk about tourism. Then the shots ring out. Adam Ward turns as he falls to the ground, catching a glimpse of the murderer. We might even see some of his blood. Adam Ward did not make a sound. The third victim also doesn’t make a sound. However Alison Parker does not stay quite, at all. Parker screams and screams and yells “Oh My God!” just as the feed is cut off. That was the real screams of woman being murdered.

This is why we have the Death Penalty, people. I really want someone to defend “Life Without Parole” for this guy. In fact, I’d like to see this guy get the firing squad. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice for this wonton death and destruction?

With that all out of the way, I already hear the calls for “gun control” spring up. You don’t need a gun to murder people. To blame the gun, would be like blaming the rope the KKK used to hang people. The 9/11 Hijackers also didn’t need guns. If this monster didn’t have a gun to commit the murder, the monster could have a knife to stab these people. Or a blunt object or his hands to beat them to death. Or a bomb to blow the TV station. Or a car to run a WDBJ van off the road.

Do I want to see a world without guns? Yes, absolutely! I look forward to the day when we no longer have them. However for every story I hear of someone being murdered with a gun, I hear two or three stories about an armed person defending themselves with a gun. Guns are not evil or good, they just are. To unilaterally disarm the law abiding good people of this world of their best means of self-defense is just wrong. The bad guys do not care about gun control or gun free zones.

Gun control isn’t about controlling guns, but about controlling people. It is about making people dependent on the government and/or police state for their safety.

Well, see ya’ later!

Theme: TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Webdesign
(Note: Website No Longer Works. Removing Link.)